Forums

Everything posted by Buckeye Jones

Well, she learned that the Force moves rocks. But the three lessons that Luke teaches her are 1) The Jedi are not the sole owners of the light side of the Force, 2) something else I've forgotten by now, and 3) I don't think he explicitly teaches her one, but I took it that Luke's final lesson is the sacrificial feint at the end, from which she learned that a real hero will give everything up of himself to save those he loves. But maybe it was the rock lesson.
But was Yoda lying? She DID have everything she needed. I can't recall the actual line.
I really don't get worked up about where Johnson took this as somehow subverting the Star Wars mythology, but I can see how one can be so inclined. When I reflect on the film, I just wish for a little tighter edit. What I'd really like to see are Lucas's treatments he passed along to Disney with the sale.

SPOILER
Peter wrote:
Of course, the old Yoda, which is the only Yoda Luke knows, was the comical Yoda.
Starwars.com (marketing, of course), has a relatively open interview with Johnson on his choices in VII here: http://www.starwars.com/news/we-had-such-a-great-time-rian-johnson-on-the-path-to-star-wars-the-last-jedi.
The glove stuff doesn't bother me at all, nor does the recall of Darth Sidious. The Holdo stuff does, because its stupid within the story, even though it pays off with her jump to lightspeed. Moving Snoke out of the way, in a way that plays off ROTJ (with some direct quotes from that film here, e.g. the elevator ride) in an interesting way AND sets up a really tight action sequence and brings Ben Solo's character to a sharp point, even with the echo back to Vader's offer in ESB. The "let the past die" stuff is just a false hope on the character's part, even as the past literally dies. But it just doesn't die; it leaves a tremendous legacy that progresses the story forward in Rey's learning of Luke's lessons, and of course she may find those Jedi treatises more page-turning than Luke did.

Saw that SDG and Peter Chattaway both reflected that THE LAST JEDI refutes/replaces many of the THE FORCE AWAKENS themes/directions or "mystery boxes". Much of the storyline in TLJ is specifically focused on moving on from the past, so thematically you could say TLJ is reacting to the nostalgia bomb that was in TFA. Though, at one of the initial climaxes, a dramatic and not unexpected shift in allegiance quickly blends callbacks to both ROTJ and ESB--it was as if Johnson faced nostalgia head on, and then shook it up. What follows is certainly exciting and interesting as it moves our players to the final acts of this trilogy.
Ultimately, I didn't feel that TLJ refuted or rolled its eyes at TFA, even if what was set up as big fan concerns (you'll recall the endless debates over a couple of characters' origins) was rather quickly addressed and forced the characters to move on, or not, as the case may be.
Hamill did really good work here, and I found myself wishing that instead of this trilogy, Lucasfilm had picked up the story 15 years earlier in the narrative. I think there was a ton of interesting story to explore with Skywalker's attempts at restoring the Jedi order, and the conflicts that arose in that time period that would have potentially been more dramatically satisfying than the current stories. But perhaps that was ground already covered in Lucas' own prequels, with Anakin's fall and all that.
The diverging storylines probably could have used a little bit of tightening, particularly Finn's. And there's an important leadership lesson in the Holdo/Daemeron dynamic: If you actually have a plan in a stressful situation, its important to share it transparently. Would have saved a lot of headache and heartache.
It's a good movie, with a lot to like. I tend to think it provides a valuable continuation of what started in TFA in a way that pushes the story forward in interesting ways but without "course correcting".
SPOILER
Having grown up as a kid seeing the original films came out, I am not a real fan of watching the big three not survive these individual films. I'd have loved to have seen Han, Luke, and Leia share some screen time again, and "pass the baton" if you will through means other than their deaths. I'm very glad Johnson put Luke and Leia together, even for a brief moment.

Now streaming on Amazon Prime. Fascinating film. That final act, with father and son as co-explorers, is just a powerful piece of filmmaking.
Peter mentions the color grading--it is a consistent washed out sepia tone through the entire film. Its effect is not unlike an instagram filter to create an "aged photo" feel. At times, it is distracting, particularly on the river sequences. It does communicate "heat" rather effectively, and perhaps tonally that one's perspectives always color the information one takes in. I found myself wishing for a bit more building of relationships between characters, but that final act, once son has grown up to idealize and inspire his father, hits me in the gut.

NBooth's post is worth at least 5 of the Magnificent Seven. This is one of those films that I left not just disappointed in, but I kinda actually hate. Its on Amazon Prime now, so I feel marginally better that I didn't pay extra for it. But I've seen a handful of Fuqua's films now, and I think he's got a dour heavyhandedness that makes his stuff just unpleasant. So the overall effect is a subversion of the mythic West (by now itself a cliche: Blood Meridian, the Wild Bunch, Silverado, Appaloosa, Unforgiven--heck, even the clunky 3:10 to Yuma remake have mined this ground with greater reward). But the dullness of it is overwhelming, with a dark, brutal, pounding of the senses with shooting and killing and meanness that is unleavened by any lightness. I get it--everyone wants to be gritty, and tell the real story of the Western, but I'm of the opinion you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are making a PG-13 blockbuster remake of The Magnificent Seven, you need to lighten the load with likable characters (perhaps by not having one of your heroes blow the brains of out a two bit thief then shoot off his brother's ear then mock them in a sad attempt at humor or characterization), and some real sense of peril--some stakes, again, with people you might care about, or at least with characters that OTHER characters care about. Even the Robicheaux/Rocks/Chisolm relationship was hamfisted. Ugh. And I can't even remember the ending VO, and I watched this a week ago. Not a fan. I'd argue the right way to do this is to hand the reins over to Costner and let him turn it into an Open Range 2. That was a western that knew what it was doing--even with some pretty dark and gritty stuff happening.

Abrams. Well, get ready for Death Star 4.0.
Kennedy: “With The Force Awakens, J.J. delivered everything we could have possibly hoped for*, and I am so excited that he is coming back to close out this trilogy."
* Buckeye Jones: "Except new stuff."

Well, it was fun to see this on the big screen again, though I'm not very impressed with Fathom Events. The screening kicks off with a fawning interview of Shatner. There's a great moment though. Shatner tells a story about being on a tight filming schedule due to his TJ Hooker obligations (which I dutifully watched as a kid who's dad was a huge Star Trek fan even though all my friends were watching Dukes of Hazzard, which aired at the same time). Apparently, he was back to back with filming scheduled to end on one day for Trek, and Hooker picking up the very next day. That final morning, there was a fire on set on Trek, and Shatner, oblivious to the danger, was so worried about missing the start of Hooker's schedule he rushed in to put out the fire with a garden hose before the firemen arrived. They did, the set was saved, and all was well. The interviewer, who's name I don't recall, corrects Shatner. "One small correction, Bill...that happened on Star Trek III, not Star Trek II."
Shatner: "It did?"
Interviewer: "Yes. You were still filming TJ Hooker, in 1984, but its a great story."
Shatner: "They all run together anyway."
Interviewer: "Do you have any favorite stories from filming Star Trek II?"
After which, Shatner moves on to other matters.
Other notes--the director's cut was what was shown, and the transfer seemed funky. Peter's link above shows many issues that were present, but other areas of concern were the sound quality and picture quality. Often dialogue would jump in quality within the cuts of a scene. Sometimes it would sound as if improperly mixed ADR happened for a line reading or two--almost like when cuss words got dubbed out on a TV broadcast, though of course, in this case it was as if someone just had no other take than the one recorded in ADR but not mixed into the scene's overall sound. With regards to the picture quality, frequently the focus seemed off, especially in well lit medium shots.
This is still the best Trek movie, and its powerful story is realized in a moving and impressive way. Glad to see it on the big screen once again.

So, I'm getting a chance to let my kids see Star Trek II on the big screen. For the 35th anniversary of The Wrath of Khan's release, the film's being screened for a couple of nights (link below). It's the director's cut version, so, not quite what I took in in 82, but it will be fun to have them see it in widescreen glory.
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/star-trek-ii

This has been playing on Prime Video for awhile now, and I just got to it. I wasn't very impressed. I didn't know much other than what was in the trailer, which was that she was immortal-lite and was at one time in love with Harrison Ford. Of course, knowing that, spoilers abound.
Abounding spoilers:
Of course, knowing that, then as soon as she let herself get a little close to the rich dude, Ellis, who uncannily looks like the only other famous movie Ellis--you know who I mean, or my respect for your cinemaphile credentials is now sub-zero--anyway, Ellis, of course would turn out to be Harrison Ford's kid. Ick. Of course, the movie touched on this a little bit, but not with any real insight other than his character's wife of forty years is upset that Ford, an astronomer named William, is now reminiscing about an old flame he's never talked about who turns out to be the supposed mother of son Ellis's girlfriend. To be fair, I think for the most part, Ford acquits himself well with the role, but the script is such a hamfisted letdown that had me rolling my eyes from the luminescent hanger ceiling to the quick toss of the keys from father to son:
"Do you love her, son?"
"Yep, dad, sure do!"
"Cool, I do too! She's the one that got away, but maybe the family can reel her in this time!" Tosses keys. Cue electricae ex machina.
The Ellis character and the relationship between William and Ellis and Adaline ruined this story for me (the pretentious voiceover didn't help much either). I just never bought Ellis as a character. He was flawless--young, rich, erudite, honorable, kind, passionate about first edition books and old boats. He drove an old Saab for goodness sake. So the narrative that this too-perfect pretty rich guy turns out to be the only son of the one guy after Adaline's original husband that she fell in love with and caused her to desist dating at all is too much, it's too contrived. It's also icky! Not to get all puritanical or whatever, but the dad's cheering on the son for getting together with the girl that got away--its too much to just take straight. Maybe if you want to get all kind of Sophocles about it, you can bring some real pathos and wrenching drama to it, but nope, Dad's cool! At least he gets his comet in the end. Why have this be the relationship if you don't want to do something interesting with it? But nope, Dad's nice--he loves his wife, and gets to give her a good speech. Adaline's cool--she's really in love with William 2.0 (he does have a nice non-flawed life), and Ellis is cool (he even gets the girl when she begins to age again thanks to the contrivance). Argggh.
There's a couple of nice scenes--I like Adaline going through album after album of her cocker spaniels. I'd think she'd get a little jaded after 30 of them, but what do I know, I'm a cat person.

These advertisements make this seem such a straight-laced, obvious story (evil genius makes army of robots to "save" humanity, only to be stopped by anti-hero cop and vintage model Harrison Ford). It can't be this obvious and on the nose, can it? It's too plain.

I see that the Top 100 blurbs are down to the final ten. I wrote four. While it was a lot of fun, it was also a lot of work. I bet Greg & co. would have made a lot quicker progress if they'd just asked for haiku blurbs.
For example, the blurb for M was really hard to write. But this haiku took thirty seconds.
M
1931, Fritz Lang
Violent men search
Pedophile Pete Lorre
Whose big speech fails him.
So, now its your turn. Post your haiku reviews here. Whatever film you want. Heck, even Sunshine. Three lines. Seventeen syllables. Let 'em rip.

Just caught this last night. It's streaming on Amazon Prime. If you haven't seen this, I can't recommend it highly enough. I'm in the marketing industry, and I'm sure I've had conversations showing clients/brands the buying power of the African-American market, and when that old footage pitching the market growth of the Negro consumer popped up it really hit home. I think the Baldwin of this film would argue that we're all commodities and profit centers for somebody but making the tie back to the slave auction advertisement was a powerful bit of editing to illustrate that specific commodification of the black man and woman.